Viking Coder wrote:
>
> Everybody probably already knows my stand on this issue. I'll try to do an
> objective analysis though.
>
> e-gold averages between 5-10,000 spends in any 24 hours period.
> In the past few months, there has been as few as 2500 and as many as
> 28,000.
>
> A few relevant questions are:
>
> How many of these spends take place through the SCI?
> How many of these spends take place throught the programmer's interface?
> How many of these spends are made in rapid-fire mode by MMs who are doing
> the day's round of e-gold exchanges?
I don't know. Who cares? What difference does it make. A guy takes out
an
ad for a price and measures the results. Maybe the results are worth
more money the next time. Maybe less.
> Wouldn't it be bad etiquette to advertise for one company while providing
> a payment service to another company?
I don't understand that question.
> Anybody using the programmer's interface, or Khurram's new rapid spender,
> wouldn't ever see the posted ads.
Those people would be such a small percentage of e-gold users, it
wouldn't
make a difference.
> Anybody who is in 'business-mode' when doing spends probably does not want
> to be distracted by advertising.
You can't please all of the people all of the time.
And, if they are really in 'business-mode', the ads shouldn't be a
distraction.
> The standard response is that people can turn off the ads if they want to.
>
> How many people will leave the ads turned on? It should actually work the
> other way around. If e-gold does decide to implement ads, they should be
> opt-in not opt-out. After all, how many people are happy about opt-out
> mailing/spam lists?
>
> Then we have the slippery slope phenomena. Once the ads are on the spend
> page, why not put them on them on all the account pages, or all over the
> site?
>
> JP said that advertising is done strictly for revenue, right? The amount
> of revenue that e-gold could earn from ads would be inconsequential when
> compared with the revenue they earn from transaction fees.
Your forgetting revenue earned from transaction fees can be increased
because of increased e-gold accepting business's revenue due to
advertising. It seems to me you're consentrating on a small part of the
big picture. Things affect other things. Growth rates affect other
growth
rates.
If e-gold accepting business's growth rates are suffering because they
are having a problem communicating with an important market, so won't
e-gold's growth rates suffer. What's so hard to understand about this?
Do you actually think that all GBC companies are going to refuse for
ever
a growing demand for ad space. What's going to happen after the first
GBC
starts accepting ads?
> e-gold's # of users with funded accounts is currently at ~100,000 (96,185
> funded gold accounts). This is impressively high compared with what it was
> last year.
Ya, but the new account growth rate has leveled/fallen. Besides, what's
your
point? That e-gold growth rates that are lower than they can be is a
*good*
thing?
However, this is comprised of people from all over the world
> with dramatically divergent wants and needs. Currently, small
> 'cottage-farm' companies populate the landscape because a niche company
> will only interest a fraction of the relatively small e-gold userbase;
> even with ads on the spend page.
Ah come on man, most of the biggies started out as small niche
companies.
Sheesh.
> Anybody who starts up a new venture, online or not, will have to do some
> form of advertising. This includes their store-front presence;
What good is a store front presense if almost nobody knows the store
exists (assuming it's a Web site)?
either a
> website and/or a physical location. If a large company decides to accept
> e-gold, a multi-billion dollar ad campaign won't be required to alert
> their normal users to such an action. They can use their opt-in mailing
> lists, make announcements on their website, and utilize the same, very
> useful, tool that e-gold does - word of mouth. Good personal
> recommendation are worth tremendously more than any advertising.
It could be that an existing large company's incentive to accept e-gold
is to bring in *new* business. Somebody recently raised money to start
another business, from going to an existing customer base. Get it?
> I didn't really succeed in doing an objective analysis, but I think I have
> asked a few questions that weren't asked yet.
"The Theory of probabilities is at bottom nothing but commmon sense
reduced to Calculus." - Pierre Simon de Laplace
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
